Opposition is growing to a plan to install artificial turf and floodlights and restrict the public’s access to Rutherford Park, a municipal park on the southeast flank of Mount Royal.

Les amis de la montagne, a charitable organization whose mission is to protect and enhance the historic and natural heritage of Mount Royal, is the latest group to weigh in on the plan. In a 44-page report obtained by the Montreal Gazette, the influential group urged the Ville-Marie borough to rethink its project.

“Despite the studies presented by the borough to support its proposal and efforts made to improve it, Les amis de la montagne is of the opinion that many elements of the redevelopment project proposed for Rutherford Park remain incompatible with the site.”

Rutherford Park — a 37,000 square-metre green space bordered by Docteur-Penfield Ave., Pins Ave. and McTavish St. — was built in 1957 over the McTavish water reservoir, which dates back to the mid-19th century.

Until the city began excavation to replace the reservoir membrane, the park was a popular spot among Frisbee players, sunbathers and picnickers. Sports teams from FACE, a nearby public school with 1,500 elementary and high school students and no outdoor sports field, also regularly used part of the park for soccer and football practise.

Once the membrane is replaced, the Ville-Marie borough is proposing, in partnership with McGill University, to install an artificial playing field, and four 30-metre-high light towers. City councillor Steve Shanahan argues the downtown area is deprived of sports facilities and Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who is also borough mayor of Ville-Marie, has said he is all for the project.

Under the proposal, McGill University sports teams would have exclusive use of the park 55 per cent of the time (from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays from September through November, and from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekdays from May through August).

The plan has residents of the area up in arms. They see the plan as the partial privatizing of a public space — since McGill teams would have exclusive use more than half the time — and they are concerned about the health and environmental effects of artificial turf, including the potential for contamination of the water reservoir by run-off.

In its report, Les amis de la montagne echoes some of those concerns but also notes that the project seems to clash starkly with the city’s much-vaunted plan to create a “mountain-to-river urban promenade” for Montreal’s 375th birthday in 2017.

The west side of Rutherford Park is a key part of that promenade, the report notes, and so the city should “avoid creating a sports centre (with the installation of a synthetic field, floodlights, bathrooms, drop-off areas, bleachers, fences, etc.) that would negate the wide-open and charming qualities it is looking for in its planned urban promenade and which are not compatible with the iconic meeting place of the mountain and the city that Rutherford Park constitutes.”

The urban promenade was inspired by similar projects in other cities as a way to combat climate change by encouraging residents to walk, linking up green spaces, increasing the tree canopy, improving biodiversity, etc. So installing artificial turf and fencing in what was once a green space goes against that philosophy, the report notes.

The park’s open fields, rocky cliff and historic reservoir building should all be showcased features of the urban promenade, the report suggests. “The park plays witness to the presence of water on the mountain, an element which has played a crucial role in the development of the city.”

Another major concern for Les amis de la montagne is the impact the sports facility would have on sight lines. “The historic, architectural, cultural and natural elements that characterize the Rutherford Park sector (the open lawns, the rocky cliff, the historic reservoir building) constitute an exceptional site in the Montreal landscape. This site contributes directly to the branding of the city … a heritage site that has been part of the city since the 19th century.”

The 30-metre-high light standards, even with reflectors to make them less intrusive, would have a negative visual impact day and night, the report suggests, and would not respect the agreement to protect and improve the Mount Royal heritage site that was adopted by the City of Montreal and the Quebec government in 2002.

The park is within the limits of the official Mount Royal Heritage Site, and so is governed by the provincial law on heritage and culture. This means that any redevelopment plan would have to be authorized by the Minister of Heritage and Culture, Hélène David.

A spokesperson for David said her department is studying the renovation project and analyzing whether it respects the conservation plan for the Mount Royal Historic and Heritage Site.

Alex Norris, city councillor for the Jeanne-Mance district, wrote to David in July asking her to veto the project. Residents of his district, which is adjacent to Peter-McGill and to the mountain, have signed a petition against it. He also noted that there are already three other large sports fields with artificial turf within the heritage site of Mount Royal, and that the encroachment of all kinds of development on Mount Royal must stop.

“If it is authorized, the project would destroy the exceptional character of this site … It would ruin the views from and toward the mountain, which are supposed to be protected by provincial law. It would denaturalize the very spirit of this heritage site by inserting an industrial, fenced-in structure into a natural space,” wrote Norris, who is a member of the Table de concertation du Mont-Royal, a municipal committee that focuses on accessibility, protection and improvement of Mount Royal.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.